1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9741-9742  OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.5243-5244/2010)

TATA COMMUNICATION LTD.                   Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SANTOSH BABANRAO WALKE AND ORS.           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an interim order  

dated 20th January, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Public Interest  

Litigation No.109 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.9163/2009.   

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these  

appeals are recapitulated as under:

The land measuring about 774 acres was acquired by  

the Government of Bombay for Indian Radio Telegraph Company,  

in the year 1925. In the year 1947, after independence, this  

company was taken over by the Government of India giving  

birth to Overseas Communication Service – a Department of  

the Government of India and the lands were transferred in  

the name of the President of India.

2

4. In  the  year  1986,  it  was  transferred  to  Videsh  

Sanchar  Nigam  Ltd.  (VSNL),  a  wholly  owned  Government  of  

India  undertaking  to  whom  all  assets  and  liabilities  of  

Overseas Communication Service were transferred. The land  

has been in use and possession of the appellants and their  

predecessors for the last 85 years.  After a delay of about  

85 years, a public interest litigation was filed in the  

Bombay High Court. It may be pertinent to mention here that  

when this petition earlier came up for hearing before a  

Division Bench of the High Court on 22.7.2009, following  

order was passed:  

“1. Heard.

2. We will highly appreciate if the respondent-

State is able to place on record as to whether any  

Award  under  Section  11  of  the  Land  Acquisition  

Act,  1894  was  passed  subsequent  to  the  

notification issued under Section 6 of the Land  

Acquisition  Act  and  published  in  the  Bombay  

Government  Gazette  dated  August  20,  1925  in  

respect of the subject land. We also grant leave  

to the petitioner to suitably amend the petition  

which  is  in  the  nature  of  public  interest  

litigation,  for  which  an  application  should  be  

filed alongwith the Schedule of Draft Amendment,  

as in our view the relief sought in the petition  

can only be restricted to payment of compensation.  

3. Stand over to 36th August, 2009.”  

5. On  20th January,  2010,  while  issuing  rule  in  the

3

petition, the Bombay High Court directed that during the  

pendency of the petition, respondent-authorities i.e. State  

Government as well as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited shall  

preserve the land and would not carry out any construction  

over the portion of the land for which no compensation has  

been paid to the tenants/land owners.  

6. In the earlier order of 22nd July, 2009, quoted above,  

leave was granted to the petitioner in the public interest  

litigation (respondent herein) to amend the petition which  

was in the nature of public interest litigation in which  

the relief sought was restricted to payment of compensation  

only.  

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we see  

no  justification  in  subsequently  passing  an  order  

restraining the State Government from constructing over the  

land  in  question,  particularly  when  the  writ  petition  

itself had been filed after a delay of 85 years and the  

land stood acquired as early as in 1925.  

8. On consideration of the totality of the facts and  

circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order  

dated 20th January, 2010 by which the State Government as  

well as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited have been restrained  

from  carrying  out  any  construction  over  the  land  in

4

question and request the High Court to dispose of the writ  

petition as expeditiously as possible.  

9. In  case  the  claimants  are  entitled  for  any  

compensation,  the  same  would  be  paid  to  them  by  the  

concerned authorities in accordance with law.  

10. With the aforementioned observations and directions,  

these appeals are disposed of.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; November 15, 2010.